2011/10/25 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Yuping Luo wrote: > >> 2011/10/20 Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:01:47 -0700, Yuping Luo <lypingsh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> @@ -2027,9 +2037,9 @@ static int do_scsi_command(struct fsg_common >> >> *common) >> >> >> >> case READ_6: >> >> i = common->cmnd[4]; >> >> - common->data_size_from_cmnd = (i == 0 ? 256 : i) << >> >> - common->curlun->blkbits; >> >> - reply = check_command(common, 6, DATA_DIR_TO_HOST, >> >> + common->data_size_from_cmnd = (i == 0 ? 256 : i); >> > >> > At this point parens are not really needed. >> > >> agree, the following is more readable >> common->data_size_from_cmnd = (i == 0) ? 256 : i; > > This is a matter of personal taste. I find it less readable. > > In order to parse that expression correctly, you have to know whether > the '=' operator has higher or lower precedence than the '?' operator. > I can't be bothered to remember details like that, so I always put the > entire right-hand argument of the assignment inside parens. > > (Of course, then I face the problem of whether '==' has higher or lower > precedence than '?'. It may be illogical, but I'm more willing to deal > with that ambiguity than the other one.) anyway, this is trivial. if you think yuping's new patch has achieved the goal, i'd like to send formal v2. > > Alan Stern > > -barry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
